Therefore I think that the petitioners, on the evidence in their case, have not established the claim above specified. Among the papers of the case is a memorandum showing that an agreement was made by Mr. Blair, when he was solicitor of this court, that testimony taken to be used in the case of R. R. Ward et al., assignees of Jacob Barker, might be used in this case. But the agreement is said to be lost, and when it was made is not shown, nor whether it related exclusively to testimony then taken, or included in its scope all the testimony since taken for the rehearing of the case of R. R. Ward et al. And it is understood that the present solicitor has no knowledge in relation to it. If such agreement was shown to include and to bring into this case all the evidence taken for the case of R. R. Ward et al., then it would be proved that the petitioners paid for their stock in bills or credits which were equivalent to specie, and that Dennis A. Smith paid for his stock in bills or credits depreciated 16 per cent. below par; and I should be of opinion (for the reasons stated in my opinions read in the case of R. R. Ward et al.) that the petitioners were entitled to recover from the United States 16 per cent. on the stock which the petitioners held August 31, 1814, with interest at the rate of six per cent. from the time the money was received for the ten million loan. As the burden of proving the agreement referred to is on the petitioner, and it is not proved, I am of opinion he is not entitled to recover on the item of claim referred to. The petitioner avers, further, that on the 15th of February, 1815, Richard Smith subscribed for stock issued under the act of the 24th March, 1814, for the Farmers' Bank of Annapolis, and, by his contract with the Secretary, paid in bills or credits on the banks of the District of Columbia, then twenty-four per cent. below par. And the petitioner claims the benefit of this difference, "as erms more favorably" granted to Mr. Smith within the condition of their contract. But I am of opinion that the averment that the loan made by Richard Smith for the Farmers's Bank of Annapolis was made under the act of March 24, 1814, and was a part of that loan, is not proved. In the report of Hon. J. A. Dallas, Secretary of the treasury of the United States, (Am. St. Papers, Finance, vol. 9, p. 153,) made December 31, 1815, that officer states the moneys received into the treasury during the year 1815, under loans, and specifies the loans on which the receipts were had, by the dates of the acts of Congress authorizing them; and in that specification the act of March 24, 1814, is not mentioned. This fact, coupled with the fact that at the time referred to, viz: February 15, 1815, there were in force three other loan acts, under two of which the Treasurer was authorized to receive the notes of banks of the District of Columbia, and to none of which the condition of the act of March 24, 1814, attached, disproves, in my opinion, the averment of the petitioner that the loan made by Richard Smith for the Farmers' Bank of Annapolis was made under the act of March 24, 1814. It was objected, on the part of the United States, that the loan made by the Mechanics' Bank to the United States, for which the stock of the United States was issued to the bank, was illegal and void, because the charter of the bank prohibited it from dealing in stock of the United States. But to the prohibition in the charter there is an exception, which authorizes or permits the bank to receive stocks of the United States as security for debts. And I think the loan by the bank to the United States, on the security of the stock of the United States, as shown here, was within the terms and spirit of that exception. The prohibition is against the trafficing of the bank in stocks of the United States, and thus speculating in them. The bank, therefore, could not buy and sell such stock for profit; but it could receive them as security for a debt or for a loan, as well from the United States as from an individual. In the objection of form, as to the sufficiency of parties here, I concur in the opinion read by Judge Scarburgh. On the whole case, I am of opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to relief on the present state of the evidence. HUGHES J., did not sit in this case. Rep. C. C. 262-6 36TH CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. S REPORT C. C. 2d Session. No. 263. C. J. JENKINS AND W. W. MANN, ASSIGNEES OF JOHN MCKINNIE. DECEMBER 18, 1860.-Reported from the Court of Claims, committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and ordered to be printed. The COURT OF CLAIMS submitted the following REPORT. To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled: The Court of Claims respectfully presents the following documents as the report in the case of C. J. JENKINS AND W. W. MANN, ASSIGNEES OF JOHN McKINNIE, vs. THE UNITED STATES. 1. The petition of the claimant to the Court of Claims. 2. Petition to the House of Representatives, and resolution referring the same to the Court of Claims, transmitted to House of Representatives. 3. Claimant's evidence on first hearing transmitted to the House of Representatives. 4. Schedule of documents offered by the government as evidence. 5. Opinion of the court adverse to the claim. 6. Judge Loring's opinion dissenting. 7. Additional evidence offered by claimant on rehearing transmitted to House of Representatives. 8. Claimant's brief. 9. United States solicitor's brief. 10. Opinion of the court adverse to the claim, Judge Loring dissenting. By order of the Court of Claims. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said court, at Washington, this 17th day of December, L. S.] A. D. 1860. SAM'L H. HUNTINGTON, IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. CHAS. J. JENKINS AND WM. W. MANN vs. THE UNITED STATES. Petition. To the judges of the Court of Claims: The petition of Charles J. Jenkins and William W. Mann showeth: That they are the assignees of John McKinne, an insolvent debtor, residing in Richmond county, in the State of Georgia, appointed such assignees by the honorable the city court of the city of Augusta, in the county and State aforesaid, under the act of said State for the relief of insolvent debtors. That heretofore, to wit, on the day of, eighteen hundred and, the United States of America had recovered several judgments against Joshua E. White & Co. on custom-house bonds, and against Barna McKinne and Gabriel W. Denton, copartners, under the firm of B. McKinne & Co., as their sureties, a very small portion of which said judgments was collected when the parties defendant became, or were supposed to be for many years, and most of them now are, actually insolvent; that the said Gabriel W. Denton, about the year eighteen hundred and twenty, left the State of Georgia and removed to the State of Louisiana, where in the course of a few years he amassed a moderate fortune; that in the year eighteen hundred and thirty-four certain negotiations were entered into between the Treasury Department of the United States and the said John McKinne concerning the collection of the large balance remaining due upon said judgments, in favor of the United States, against Joshua E. White & Co. and B. McKinne & Co., by the said John McKinne, as agent of the said Treasury Department; that pending said negotiations the said John McKinne, by letter addressed to Solicitor of the Treasury, inquired if certain parties to said judgments, and particularly Gabriel W. Denton, were still bound by them, stating, at the same time, that if they were not, he (the said McKinne) would decline any agency in the matter; that, in answer to said inquiry, he was informed by said Solicitor that, on inquiry at the treasury, his information was, that no release had been granted to either of the parties mentioned in his letter; whereupon the said John McKinne signified his willingness to undertake said agency for an adequate allowance for his services out of such amount as he might collect; that thereupon the Secretary of the Treasury agreed to confer said agency, and actually did confer the same, upon the said John McKinne, and further agreed and promised to allow and pay to the said John McKinne, as a compensation for his services to be rendered to the said United States in said agency, twenty-five per cent. of all moneys that he should thereafter collect or secure on said judgments; that the said John McKinne afterwards, to wit, on or about the first day of January, A. D. eighteen hundred and thirty-five, accepted said agency upon the terms proposed, and entered upon it forthwith; that, being furnished with all needful authority in the premises, the said John |